« A low point for Amy Goodman | Main | Let us now praise Chris Hedges »

Thursday, March 08, 2007


Clark did not defend bombing the RTS because it was an "instrument of propaganda." He said it was a valid military target because it was part of Milosevic' command and control of his military. And for what it's worth (obviously not much to someone like yourself who values his own opinion more than international law) the UN and every single NATO member nation agreed.


You're mistaken:

A message from Clark was read by one of his chief spokesmen, British Air Commodore David Wilby. "Serb radio and TV [represent] an instrument of propaganda and repression," Wilby read.

You're correct that Clark also called it part of the Yugoslav military's "command and control network"--as I cited in the post just before this one. The two quotes aren't exclusive, of course. For the purposes of this posting, however, the key phrase was the one that I cited--for obvious reasons. I'd reiterate (as I did in that previous posting) that simply calling it part of the Yugoslav "command and control network" is mere handwaving, and requires some sort of evidence--which has never been provided by Clark, or anyone else for that matter.

The fact is that RTS was bombed because it was providing immediate, graphic images of the results of US/NATO bombing attacks, thus undermining support for the bombing campaign. That's the "propaganda" that justified its destruction, and the murder of 16 civilians. And the US applied the same criminal logic again in Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying Al Jazeera offices in both countries and in the latter case killing journalist Tareq Ayoub.

As to your assertion that the UN "agreed" that RTS was a valid military target, you're simply wrong. If you want to claim otherwise feel free to provide a citation. And in fact I don't know of any explicit statements to that effect even from NATO members outside of the US and UK.

You seem to have missed the point of the posting entirely, however. I have to wonder: if Yugoslav agents had somehow managed to blow up CNN's Atlanta headquarters at that time, would you be equally willing to accept that as a valid military target? Or if Iraq had somehow infiltrated and destroyed CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS headquarters in 2003 (or 1991) as the US was laying waste to that country, would you have said, sure, no problem, those are valid targets? I imagine I can guess the answer.

The comments to this entry are closed.